Are you implying that religious evil is separate from a belief in god(s)?
I might be inclined to trust that if I’d seen a demonstration of it.
The mass majority of folks here weren’t going to “stereotype” you. Which is ironic, don’t you think ? As I stated previously in our conversations, I don’t like assumptions.
It was @Sheldon who eventually used the word religion because of your evasion of a simple question.
@CyberLN disnt even bring up “religion” in the response
Are you anti-religious? Some folks can be “spiritual” and non-religious. Some are very religious (not in an organization/corporation) & dogmatic or fundamentalists… there are as many variety of “theist” as “atheist”.
Don’t pigeon hole us, and perhaps you won’t think we’re out to pigeon hole you.
By all means. I’ll be happy to, once you tell us what scientific credentials you possess after boasting about them, and share the proof you claimed to have that Nyarl has requested several times and you have evaded demonstrating, and you can throw in the scientific evidence you claimed to have for a deity as well. Reciprocity my friend, you don’t get a free pass, relentlessly demanding a standard from others you think your superstitious claims can ignore.
They’re not mutually exclusive?
Theism involves religious belief by definition. You claimed to be a theist, and to believe in deity, and you have have defended the unevidenced hearsay of the gospels as historically valid, ipso facto you are religious.
So you are religious, by definition.
So again you are religious by definition.
Does it, do you have a citation for yet another sweeping unevidenced claim? Or is it yet again anecdotal?
Well you have failed to offer anything but hearsay and fallacious argument, so they may have a point.
There is plenty of objective evidence to support this assertion, the persecution of gay people, the crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, I could go on and on of course, but all have at their core a belief in a deity that motivates religious enmity to certain groups and other religions.
Of course, but it does logically negate the assertion a deity exists that has limitless power, knowledge and mercy, as some of the Abrahamic religions claims.
Epicurus worked this out centuries before the legends of Jesus were used to create Christianity.
Someone save me from morons! I’m assuming you’re American because, to my very British mind, only Americans can get THAT f#cked up over communism.
Searching for “tenets of communism”, I came across this Communist Theories and Principles - How Communism Works | HowStuffWorks. In it, the author lists the 10 essential tenets of communism as:
- Total abolition of private property
- Heavy progressive income tax on everyone
- Elimination of rights of inheritance
- Property rights confiscation
- State-centralized banking system
- Government ownership of transportation and vehicles
- Government ownership of agricultural means and factories
- Equal liability on all to work
- Combining agriculture with manufacturing industries; eventual redistribution of population around the country so as to equalize it
- Free education for children in public schools; combine education with industrial production
Now, assuming you accept these as reasonable, would you care to tell me where religion (or lack thereof) is even mentioned?
@UKAtheist , Cog has a certain style, you’ll get used to it, I hope so anyway as any discourse with him will likely yield some interesting ideas. He likes vituperation as well, don’t take it personally, and we are all aloud to disagree on here, and swear on occasion. Things can often get fractious between atheists here, but no harm no foul.
FWIW I think communism is an economic ideology, but it has also been used to from political ideologies, whether these reflect the core of Marxist principles is another matter, and atheism, certainly in the former USSR, was (IMHO) as much a result of challenging the established order, and the centuries old divine right of the Tsars to rule, as a requirement of communist ideology, though it there is some ideological attack on theism by Marx himself of course. So hey, you both might have a point?
@Sheldon, does it occur to you (like it does to me) that Sherlock seems to want control over the definition of atheist/ism but takes umbrage when you define his beliefs in god(s) as religious?
Sure it has but it, of itself, is not atheistic by which I mean one can be a communist and, say, a Christian.
To my mind most atheists tend to be reasonable people, thinking, broadly speaking caring and fairly socialist (left wing) but I have, on my own Facebook group, met at least one who was scarily right wing, gun nut, uber capitalist. Maybe that’s no big thing in the US but to a Brit it was something of an eye opener.
Yes absolutely, it’d be hard to miss, it’s all part of his lame scheme to pretend atheism has the burden of proof, by dishonestly labelling atheism as a belief system, and being as vague as is possible about his own religious beliefs, even to the point of pretending he is not religious. I felt he loaded the “debate” from the start by trying to frame it in this way. It’s so easy to spot, and we’ve seen it too many times to fall for it.
As an atheist I no more need to define any deity, than someone would need to define an invisible unicorn in order to withhold belief from a claim they existed. Note this arbitrary rule only applies to atheists, but not to him, and from the start he steadfastly refused to explain when asked, what his criteria is for all the deities he disbelieves are real.
Just like the double standard over the definition of atheism, where he insists we defer to relatively obscure philosophical tomes citing archaic definitions, but the current dictionary definitions are dismissed without any justification. Or the insistence that the anonymous hearsay of the gospels are compelling evidence, but only for his religious beliefs.
Sure, theoretically anyway, not sure how well someone would fare under many communist regimes if they made that public mind, but that’s another matter. In the USSR universities had degrees in atheism, atheist education and indoctrination was not optional in schools. this is the problem with totalitarian regimes, whether theistic or atheistic, they don’t afford or respect the rights or freedoms of the individual.
Oh I’ve met some here who crazier than a box of frogs, and political affiliations here vary. I have learned not make assumptions over the years, and to be fair I don’t care. I long ago stopped imagining good or bad ideas come exclusively from one end of the political spectrum, though my own politics is generally left of centre.
And one of us might be cherry-picking bullshit and ignoring the actual case that has been made. One of us might be equivocating definitions and ignoring the actual case that has been made. One of us clearly does not know how to read or define terms clearly.
What made you conclude it was ever a belief? You believe in the existence of gods. I do not.
To add: you seem to be heavily implying that Atheism is exclusive only to Christianity. It isn’t. It applies to every religion that believes in the existence of a god or gods.
Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Pagans all claim they believe in god(s) without any evidence. Just a historical fiction novel that they believe has the facts. Atheists don’t buy into it and therefore making It a disbelief because it specifically doesn’t acknowledge those god claims.
This guy is reminding more and more of that master of equivocation we had a few years ago on this site, Earned himself a life ban. Made all the same arguments used the same deflections…was as dishonest in every post.
Turned out to be a JW… remember him you older denizens of this 9th level of hell? Oh, he wouldn’t speak directly to me then either.
They do them here in the UK too, courses at least, and in the EU, I even saw something about a course being taught in the USA (Miami) so I don’t know how much that counts for anything.
Although I accept Russian communist leaders might have preferred atheism, the premise that communism is atheistic is, at best, problematic. I’m not convinced one can even call Russia communist these days; yeah, I know it’s the same bunch of f#ckwits but they’re communist in name only and seem politically more fascist right now. But I digress.
Atheism hasn’t reigned supreme in Communist Russia and it appears that the Soviet government was more concerned with restricting institutionalized religion than with trying to eradicate all worship, a near impossible task so compromise was required. Sure, Communist leaders made strenuous, sometimes even murderous, efforts to promote atheism and eliminate religion but they were far from successful (supported by the massive resurfacing of religion after the demise of the Communist regime). There wasn’t a straight-line, unvarying, unrelenting suppression of religion in Communist Russia rather alternating periods, sometimes lasting for decades, of relaxing and of strengthening antireligious policies. Despite hostility between the two, there were times when the orthodox church settled into neutrality and even some support and, in the seventies, the Communist government revised its state/church regulations in favour of Orthodox and Baptist churches possibly as a reward for their support.
In essence, Christianity was present in the very heart of, “Godless Communism”. Indeed, the Orthodox Church bears significant responsibility for perpetuating the Bolsheviks tyrannical grip on their people; neither the first or last time that Christians have “sold their souls” for their own benefit.
I haven’t done any research on Chinese communism but, based on a casual view, it strikes me that they’re probably much the same. Not claiming that’s true though.
LOL. I always thought it was a box of cats but Google thinks I’m wrong, oh well!
I didn’t say an atheist has no beliefs. I was saying that they affirm “I do not hold this belief” as having meaning. I’m of the opinion that the statement has no meaning, the atheist regards it as true though.
When presented with some proposition, one either agrees (asserts it is true), disagrees (asserts it is false) or is undecided, does not know how to decide if it is true or false.
Why “modern” atheists phrase their position as “absence of belief in deities” rather than “I’m undecided” is far from clear to me, it suggests that their true position is “there is no God” but they don’t want to admit that.
If faced with the proposition “it will rain at Heathrow sometime next week” and what they think, nobody would ever say “I do not hold a belief that it will rain”, they’d say either “Yes I think it will”, “No I don’t think it will” or “I don’t know”.
This why Berlinksi, myself and many others regard this version of atheism as pretentious, almost a cult, fanatical, storm in a teacup.
🤦🏼 Every single thread you beat this dead horse.
Rain has been evidenced.
Keep your obsession to one thread please.
What do you mean?
You don’t believe in the other gods correct? So how hard is it to empathize that someone like me or @Sheldon is capable of not believing you when you or any Christian for that matter when say your god exists?
@Cognostic stated it best. Sufficient evidence. The bible is a claim, not the proof.
It means I don’t believe in any deity or deities, and yes that is a factually correct statement.
Nope, knowledge and belief are not the same, as ever your grasp of language like your malleable definition of evidence, is being mangled to suit your agenda.
I am an agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, and I disbelief all claims for which insufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated, those two assertions are not mutually exclusive and will overlap.
I don’t believe you since they and I have spent days explaining this very simplest of epistemological concepts.
No that is a lie you seem determined to peddle, whilst whining like a child every time your disrespect is remotely reciprocated, you came to peddle your superstitious wares, and are simply annoyed that your vapid spiel has made no dent.
False equivalence fallacy, the prospect of rain isn’t unfalsifiable. The truth is that many atheists simply have a far better grasp of logic and epistemology, and so they don’t make ludicrous claims when they don’t know, unlike theists, as your posts have amply demonstrated of course.
You can believe in unevidenced magic sky fairies if it makes you happy. I could care less what a dishonest faux intellectual tries to claim about what I should and should not believe.
My post was entirely appropriate for the thread given the title “Is atheism a belief system” - we are discussing that theme. Furthermore I was responding to a remark made by UK atheist directly addressing what the person said.
Finally I have no obsession, just a desire to challenge and discuss ideas.
Incorrect. I might well say that god X does not exist, or I might say I don’t know, I would never belabor the point with the waffly “I do not hold a belief in X”.
I don’t know if the universe is deterministic, there are indications it might not be, but I would never say “I do not hold the belief that the universe is deterministic”, I say " I don’t know if the universe is deterministic".
Yet the “modern” atheist strenuously avoid saying this, they never say it, and they disapprove of definitions that are phrased that way.
So why is that? surely if one doesn’t know then they don’t know do they?
Do you believe the deities you don’t know exist are real? Only I tend to withhold belief from claims I can know nothing about, as it is the only rational position.